By   Sri.M.P.Chandrakumar,  Member :

                    The case of the complainant is that attracted by the advertisement in the newspapers that FORD FIESTA car is a luxury car, having fuel efficiency and good facilities of international standards, he in search of a good car , approached the 2nd opposite party and discussed with them, to understand more details about the car. The opposite party made the complainant believe that the car is fuel efficient than other cars and would give a milage of 30 kms /ltr .  Believing  in the words of the 2^nd opposite party ,the complainant purchased a Ford Fiesta Car ,on   22-12-2006 ,on payment of Rs.8,13,700/-as cost, Rs.18,800/- as road tax , and Rs.28448/-as insurance ,the total amount being Rs.8,60,948/-.However ,after driving the car for a week ,the complainant felt several engine problems/ mechanical defects  to the car ,which he informed the 2^nd opposite party directly. As per the direction of the 2^nd opposite party to show the vehicle at the service station for the ford cars, headed by expert automobile / mechanical engineers   and recognised by the 1^st opposite party , the complainant entrusted the vehicle there for rectifying the problems. The complainant had informed them of the problems of steering tightness, side pulling, wheel balancing problems, low fuel efficiency, vibration, peculiar sounds from engine, etc. However, the service centre authorities returned back the car, failing to trace out the problems and to rectify them.  As per directions contained in the owner’s manual, the complainant had entrusted the car for service on 12-01-2007 & 12-03-2007 with the 2^nd opposite party .Even during this occasion, the opposite party has failed to rectify the problems. The complainant had heard from the employees that the car had manufacturing defects. In addition to the above two dates, the complainant had entrusted the car, as per the direction of the 2^nd opposite party, to the workshop on 31-01-2007 & on 12-02-2007 also.   At this time also, the opposite party convinced that the above mentioned problems still existed. The workshop men, after examining the car, had told the complainant of this, directly and also recordically. The 2^nd opposite party had informed the complainant indirectly that the car suffered from manufacturing defects and that experts from the 1^st opposite party are coming to rectify the problems .As such, their request was not to approach the concerned authorities with complaints. However, since there was no remedial measures, as promised, from the side of the 2^nd opposite party, a lawyer notice dated 13-02-2007 was issued, which has been accepted by the opposite party. In response, the opposite party has sent a reply, mentioning things against facts, which proves that till 22-02-07, the opposite party had failed to clear the defects to the vehicle engine. On 12-03-07, the complainant again entrusted the vehicle for servicing, explaining and requesting to rectify the engine problems. However, during this service also, the opposite party failed to rectify the defects to the engine. Also, on 3-04-2007, when the complainant was on a ride from his office to his house, the tyre of the car burst and he narrowly escaped, since the vehicle was plying in a slow speed. Since the car was having engine problems often and had to be in the workshop of the opposite party  for repairs ,the complainant was unable to use the car  often for his domestic use ,as expected and thus the very purpose of the purchase of the car was defeated .According to the complainant ,the same happened due to the manufacturing defects to the vehicle and also due to mis- alignment of the wheels. The complainant  further states that the irresponsible act of the opposite party ,in not rectifying the the engine problems ,even after entrusting the vehicle several times ,is deficiency of service .These problems have resulted in huge financial loss ,loss of reputation ,and mental tension to the complainant. Hence the complaint filed ,with prayers to direct the opposite party either to accept back the present car with engine problems and instead make available a new car without engine problems or to refund the amount of Rs.8,60,948/-,being the amount spent ,with interest from the date of purchase ,being 22-12-2006, in addition to compensation and cost.

                    2.In the version filed, the 1^st opposite party, being the manufacturer states that it is true that the subject vehicle is a sophisticated, comfortable and fuel efficient one and that the company has not made any misleading promises or misstatements, as regards the vehicle. Careful investigation of the vehicle history reveals that the complainant had abused and ill maintained the vehicle, contrary to the instructions provided in the owner’s manual of the vehicle. The vehicle had been driven on rough and non tar roads at high speeds, leading to the complaints. MRF LTD, the manufacturer of the tyre, after careful examination of the burst tyre, has confirmed that there was no manufacturing defect in the tyre and that the damage noticed was external damage / scoring caused due to the driving of the vehicle at high speeds on rough tar roads. This very incident of a new tyre bursting, establishes the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the complainant at high speeds on very bad and rough roads with sharp stones. There is no manufacturing defect to the vehicle. The authorised service centre had done their best service to the vehicle and on each occasion of service, the complainant or his representative has acknowledged that the vehicle was taken delivery after being satisfied with the work done. The complainant had been throwing vague allegations about defect in engine and car, but has failed to prove or establish the same. Considering all the above, the complaint is devoid of merits and be dismissed with costs.

                   3.In the version filed, the 2^nd opposite party states that the car was purchased by the complainant, after fully convincing himself of its appearance, quality and performance and not on any representations /canvassing made by the opposite party. The averment that the said car developed various mechanical defects within one week from the date of delivery is incorrect, since the same has not been informed by the complainant to this opposite party. The opposite party, apart from a dealer, is also an authorised service centre. The services are done with high quality and deficient free , under technical advice /expertise from the 1st opposite party , being the manufacturer ,for the cars having warranty, as also other cars ,at the instruction of the owners. While entrusting the car to the service station ,even though the complainant had informed of steering tightness ,side pulling ,door rattling ,A C vent rattling ,sun blinder rattling ,steering wobbling ,etc, the complainant had not informed of other complaints like wheel balancing defect ,vibration of the vehicle ,unusual sound from the engine side etc. The averment of the complainant that the vehicle was being used as per the instructions contained in the service manual is not true , since ,during the service of the vehicle ,it has been noted by the service engineers that the vehicle was being used in a most rough manner by the complainant .During the services on 12-01-2007 and 12-03-2007 ,there was no defects whatsoever to the vehicle .After the 1^st free service ,the vehicle was brought to this opposite party on 31-01-2007 for tyre rotation and  checking wheel alignment ; on 12-02-2007 ,the vehicle was brought there for wheel alignment  and  on 7-05-2007 ,the vehicle was brought alleging A /C  cooling complaint for which the fan motors and fuse were replaced. The complaints pointed out were problems that arise due to wear and tear as a result of usage and not due to any defects in the vehicle .When the 3^rd free service was done on 2-06-2007, at 10252 kms, the rough and careless handling of the vehicle was noticed and the complainant was advised to be more careful in handling his luxury car. The services to the vehicle were done to the full satisfaction of the complainant and he had taken away the same, after convincing themselves of the services done and thus signing the service satisfaction report .The opposite party also denies the allegation that the bursting of the tyre was due to manufacturing defects in the machine of the car and due to the mis- alignment of the wheels. The opposite party further states that in case of mis alignment of wheels ,there would be only wearing of the tyre  and not bursting /cracking ,as alleged. MRF limited , the manufacturer of the car ,after careful examination has informed that the damage to the tyre is due to some external problems and not due to manufacturing defect. The said tyre was therefore, not replaced by  MRF tyre  company . The opposite party also denies the averment of the complainant of financial loss, mental tension , loss of reputation  and also the argument that the car could not be used , as the same was continuously lying in the workshop of the opposite party .There is no dereliction of duty ,carelessness or deficiency of service on the part of this opposite party .The 1^st opposite party is the manufacturer of the car  and  this opposite party is only a dealer cum authorised service centre. Therefore, the allegation of manufacturing defect will not lie against this opposite party and this opposite party is not at all a necessary party to the proceedings. Considering all the above, the complaint be dismissed with costs

                   4.The points for consideration are

1.Is there any deficiency of service  or unfair trade practice ,on the part of the part of the opposite parties ?

2. If so, compensation and costs

                    5. Evidence consists of oral testimony of PW1 ,RW1 and CW1 .The complainant has filed exhibits marked  Ext. P1  to P11 .From the side of the opposite party ,Ext. R1 to R12 (Ext. 11 &12 objected )  and  also Ext. X 1 (1) to X 1(22).The report of the expert commr has been marked as Ext. C1.  Ext. P1 is the copy of the invoice dated 22-12-2006, Ext. P2 is the repair order dated 12-02-2007,  Ext. P3 is the repair order dated 12-03-2007, Ext. P4 is the copy of the lawyer notice dated 13-02-07, sent by the complainant to the opposite partys,Ext. P5 is the reply dated 22-02-2007 of 2^nd OP to the complainant, Ext. P6 is the letter dated 3-04-07 0f the complainant to MRF Tyres Ltd., Ext. P7 is the copy of the tax license in respect of the vehicle, Ext. P8 is the receipt dated 21-12-16 of New India Assurance Company ,Ext. P9 is the letter of authorisation, Ext. P10 is the copy of the certificate of registration in respect of the vehicle.

                   6.The details of evidences produced by the opposite parties are  Ext. X 1 (1) to X 1 (22)  are  the repair orders  issued by  2^nd opposite party ,dated  19-12-06,12-01-07(2no’s),   31-01-07,12-02-07,12-03-07,7-05-07,2-06-07,14-01-08,8-07-08,22-08-08,27-01-09,20-02-2009,      8-04-2009,12-06-2009,13-06-2009,24-06-09,8-07-09,15-09-09, 16-09-09,9-12-09, & 13-01-10,    Ext. R1  to R6 are the copies  of the repair orders in respect of the car , dated 11-05-10 ,6-09-10 ,14-10-10 ,18-10-10 ,18-12-10  & 12-01-12, Ext. R7 is the true copy of the customer concern  action report    dated 19-02-07of the vehicle,  Ext. R8 is the  original owners manual of ford fiesta vehicle,  Ext. R9 is  the lawyer notice dated 13-02-2007of the complainant to the 2^nd opposite party,  Ext. R10  is the copy of the reply notice dated 22-02-of  issued by the service manager of the 2^nd opposite party and acknowledged by the complainant,  Ext. R11 is the copy of the inspection docket issued by MRF Ltd to the 2^nd opposite party,Ext. R12 is the C.D. containing the audio video visuals o4-07-2009 f side pulling test /wheel alignment test recommended by Ford Fiesta .the manufacturer.

                   7.The report of the Expert Commissioner dated 11-07-2009, marked as Ext. C 1, containing the report after the inspection of the Car on 4-07-2009, mentions as follows

1. As per the vehicle repair history copy of M/S Kairali Ford given to him ,it is found that the vehicle was regularly serviced  and maintained by 2^nd OP , as per the recommended schedule of the manufacturer
2. By conducting test drive, it was found that the vehicle shows pulling tendency to sides, especially to the right side of the road.
3. The steering stability of the vehicle is also not good
4. Abnormal and unusual noises are also produced from the front suspension side of the vehicle.
5. By examining the service records, it is found that the complainant has reported the complaints to the vehicle, especially the side pulling, to the repairer periodically.
6. The vehicle has covered 46705 Km

                   8.The objections raised by the 2^nd opposite party, on the commr’s report are as follows

1.) The commr didn’t conduct inspection as per the required mandatory procedures, like giving notice of the inspection to them. As such, the findings of the commr is totally perverse, prejudiced and solely issued, at the instance of the complainant, to suit the purpose of the complainant’s case

2.) The inspection has been conducted, violating the principles of natural justice.

3.) The commr. is not the competent person to inspect the vehicle for determining the alleged problems and to report the same .The only fact that the commr holds the designation of private insurance surveyor or any diploma in engineering does not certify his ability to assess the technical defects in an advanced vehicle like Ford Fiesta car

4.) The statement of the commr. that the vehicle was regularly serviced and maintained by kairali ford, as per the recommended schedule of Kairali Ford,the remarks about the side pulling tendency of the vehicle , the remark that thesteering stability of the vehicleis not goodand the remarks about the abnormal and unusual noises , are incorrect andfalseand is made ,only to help the case of the complainantand hence vehemently denied .

5).The commr. didn’t conduct any scientific test or other required test, to find out the fitness of the vehicle.

6) The commr. has not mentioned anything about the present condition of the vehicle

7.) No reason has been given by the commr. to substantiate his answers / remarks.

                   9.It can be seen that the complainant has filed the complaint,  pointing out that the vehicle suffers from various problems like steering tightness ,side pulling of the car while driving ,defect in wheel balancing, deficiency in milage unusual sounds from engine side etc, which are due to manufacturing defect .Even though the problems were pointed out several times directly and over phone and in spite of entrusting the vehicle to 2^nd OP for rectifying the  manufacturing defects ,the same has neither  been rectified  nor  any reasonable explanation  of these defects given .As per the steps taken by the  complainant  dated 20-04-2007 , an expert has been appointed as the commr ,who has inspected the car on 4-07-2009 and furnished his report on 11-07-09 .

                   10.However , the last para of Page 7  of  the argument notes filed by the 2^nd opposite party on 09-04-2015 states as follows ‘’ It is very important fact note that the car  is still running without any problems and the complainant used to avail services from the 2^nd opposite party ,till recently. The car was brought on 22-12-2006.Though the warranty of the car expired on 21-12-2007, the complainant brought his car for service to the 2^nd O.P. lastly on 12-01-12, at 87735 kms. Thereafter, he sold his vehicle and the complainant is not the owner of the above vehicle. He could sell the vehicle, as the vehicle has no manufacturing defect, at all. The vehicle has now run over eight long years, without any problem.’’ The Forum feels that if the matter of selling of the car was false, the complainant might have taken immediate steps, at least to object the statement. But ,the complainant had appeared before the forum subsequently on 4-05-15 ,29-05-15 ,10-07-15, 30-07-15 , 2-09-15 ,6-10-15 ,9-11-15 ,18-12-15 ,4-12-16 ,5-03-16 and on the day of conducting of the hearing on 19-04-16 .But no statement of objection has been filed. The fact that the statement of the opposite party that the car has been sold and the complainant is now not the owner of the car, has not been objected, goes on to prove that the vehicle has been sold. The Forum further feels that if the problems still existed ,the car might not have been purchased by its new owner ,which goes on to prove that the statement of the opposite party that all the  problems to the car had been rectified by R2  is correct .The expert commr ,even though has pointed out certain problems ,has not specifically stated that they are due to any manufacturing defect.

                   11.The Forum is therefore of the view that, since the complainant is now not the owner of the car, it is not necessary to continue the complaint .The complainant has also tried to hide the matter from the Forum.

                   12.In the result, the complaint  stands  dismissed.

                        Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum this the 31^st day  of    August    2017.